CRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE

You can disallow the player to beat the game at the lowest difficulty, but you can also let people beat a game in whatever difficulty they choose. I do not see the benefit of locking people out of major parts of the game unless they play at a certain minimum difficulty. It does however make sense to create challenges that cannot be beaten unless you have the skill needed to beat them.

You mentioned encouraging the player at getting better at the game. However, locking out major content of the game sounds more like demanding than encouraging to me. Sure, I don't have to experience the whole content, but if it's a game I bought it means I get less content for my money and also that it's less likely I buy more games made from the same company.

There are several games I've beaten and then replayed on a higher difficulty. Other games I didn't feel were good enough for me to play a second time, or I did play it a second time, but not until years have passed. If those other games would have held content hostage unless I play a higher difficulty than I originally choose, it would not have meant I suddenly find them more fun. Rather, I would have to choose between continue playing the game despite getting a bit tired of it or abandoning the playtrough.

If someone wants to encourage me to get better at his/her game, then make the game fun enough for me to play multiple times. Also make getting better fun. For example, increasing the offensive capabilities of enemies in higher difficulty levels is usually a better idea than increasing their defensive capabilities since the latter often means fights just take longer.

Finally, let's say that a player plays trough a game five times in a row and selects the easiest difficulty all the time. Why care? Even if I work my way towards the hardest difficulty level, it doesn't matter if someone else just keeps playing the easiest difficulty level over and over. Why bother to encourage players who aren't interested at getting better to get better?

I do not think sealing the item bag is a good idea. It solves one problem, but creates another. I do know that some players, when facing an unbeatable battle, chooses the "go down fighting" route instead of just going for efficiency. Some players also want the game to preserve the feeling of a desperate battle and sealing the item back will kill immersion.

I don't understand though why anyone would want to fool the player into believing the battle is beatable. Obviously, the opponent has to be vastly superior in order for a battle to be unbeatable. If the opponent isn't superior, the battle has no reason to be unbeatable. If the opponent is superior, the characters would notice and by extension, so should the player.

I'll definitely be looking forward to this let's try.

I have mentioned when I don't like random variance, but perhaps I should mention what kind of random variance i do like.

I like random variance that changes what strategies I have to use. I'm not talking about situations like "these monsters can crit, so heal at 75% Max HP instead of the usual 50%" since that's just one change which will then apply to all battles against that monster. What I'm talking about is that the very same encounter group requires different strategies depending on the RNG. You fight against one ice shaman and two fros wolves. They do something and you use an appropriate strategy to deal with them. The next time you fight that group, they do something else and you will now need another strategy.

Basing characters on real life people seems awkward to me. I find it much easier to base the characters on whatever personalities I want them to have then picking one a real person has. And as I said in an earlier post, I can go more in-dept and develop them once I figure out their place in the plot.

I think we have different methods that work for us and what's easier for some, is harder for others. Also, for those who have a poor talent in this field, writing characters may be hard no matter what approach they use.